North Korea
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2013, 07:09 PM
RE: North Korea
(30-03-2013 06:21 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  And the terrorists were just a bunch of raggedly dressed men with ak-47's (which is a 66year old gun I might add) yet America is yet to "steam roll" them, even now.
Took them how many years to get Osama?

Look at Nam', those were also suppose to be just a bunch of gorilla terrorists with ak-47s... You lost that one.

There will be no steam rolling, the NK army is 1million strong with 8.5million ready to take up arms. Nukes wont just be dropped willy nilly as it would be politically unwise to do so unless NK drops one first or later in the war when people see that people are getting killed (in war? who would have guessed?)

The South may also have a vested interest in NOT nuking the north as a unified Korea would become quite the economic powerhouse, with the south and all it's technology and manufacturing and the north with all it's unskilled labor.
Not to mention families in the south have family members in the north etc..

It's a little more then "oh they'll just steam roll them, it's cool"


Those " raggedly dressed men with ak-47's" are not a conventional army, they also fight using guerilla tactics and remotely detonated bombs and they have no real structure, its a completely different situation. Find me one army from anywhere in history that has successfully steam-rolled an enemy they cant find.

They may have a large army, but it is an underfed army with limited resources, those thousands of tanks and fighter planes don't have enough fuel for most of them.

I never said anything about nuking them, where did you get that from?

Oh as for Vietnam, after the Tet offensive the North Vietnamese army was so crippled had the war continued the US would have won, Public support in the states for the war was gone by this stage so a pull out was inevitable.

In an interview with Bui Tin a colonel in the norths army said "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." It was actually part of the north Vietnamese battleplan that and the supplies from the soviets. If NK starts the war they will have no one, china has been distancing themselves from them for a while now....Apparently I didn't lose that one after all.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 07:23 PM
RE: North Korea
Quote:Those " raggedly dressed men with ak-47's" are not a conventional army, they also fight using guerilla tactics and remotely detonated bombs and they have no real structure, its a completely different situation. Find me one army from anywhere in history that has successfully steam-rolled an enemy they cant find.

I think you underestimate the craziness of the NKians. You assume they wont resort to gorilla warfare? It has worked so well for the Muslim extremists..
Even if it starts like a conventional war, battle lines drawn etc.. What happens when you push through, defeat them? You think they'll just give up and the Fatty will just shoot himself and that'll be that? This isn't like history, this isn't the Napoleon war or pretty much any war in European history really. You don't defeat them in a battle and they throw their hands up when it's obvious they're going to lose. This is like Japan in WW2, fight to the last soldier in tiny holes in the ground.
It might not start like the War on terror, but it would certainly result in it.

Quote:They may have a large army, but it is an underfed army with limited resources, those thousands of tanks and fighter planes don't have enough fuel for most of them.

Says who? The people are starving sure, but is the army? Is NK not bff with Iran because I'm pretty sure they have oil.

Back to Nam', how many tanks and planes did they have? I know they had a few but I don't think it was many (if any fighter planes).

Quote:I never said anything about nuking them, where did you get that from?

Someone else was probably suggesting it.

Quote: Public support in the states for the war was gone by this stage so a pull out was inevitable.

It doesn't matter HOW you lost, I am aware that you lose because of opinions back home, the fact remains that you did in fact lose.

You think war support would be at an all time high to go over to South Korea and fight ANOTHER war, just after you finally started wrapping up your last one. This one would be deadlier too I might add.
The American people are sick of America playing world police. At least they were all for anti-communism at the start of Vietnam...
If NK dropped a nuke, then I could see public opinion swaying in favor of war, BUT if they don't... do you really think back on the home front people are going to be behind this war? Because everyone in NK is behind a war...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 07:33 PM
RE: North Korea
You seem to think I'm for this war for some reason?

All I said was the north doesn't have the resources to win, yes they could resort to guerilla tactics but The north is all about show, If they go to war it will be exactly that all show, Look at us gloriously throwing millions of life's away head on at the imperialist enemy. Hit and run isn't their style.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 08:49 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2013 08:57 PM by Julius.)
RE: North Korea
(30-03-2013 07:09 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Oh as for Vietnam, after the Tet offensive the North Vietnamese army was so crippled had the war continued the US would have won, Public support in the states for the war was gone by this stage so a pull out was inevitable.

In an interview with Bui Tin a colonel in the norths army said "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." It was actually part of the north Vietnamese battleplan that and the supplies from the soviets. If NK starts the war they will have no one, china has been distancing themselves from them for a while now....Apparently I didn't lose that one after all.

Actually, the Tet Offensive was a major military victory for the Vietnamese Communists, and all this stuff about America's army being sabotaged by the nation's will to fight after the Tet Offensive is revisionist history.

After the 1968 Tet Offensive, the Vietcong were stronger than ever. The Vietcong Command and Logistical Infrastructure that had supported Tet was untouched. The Vietcong had lost in the cities, but had driven the Americans and South Vietnamese Army out of the countryside thus giving them control of the rural population and re-establishing their Financial (i.e., Tax) and Support Infrastructure througout the countryside where most of the people lived.

Although the Vietcong lost 40,000+ troops in the offensive, these were instantly replaced with North Vietnamese regulars (the Vietcong simply reloaded) and again the Vietcong were up to strength (about 600,000+) and stronger than ever.

We can prove that the Vietcong were stronger than ever after the Tet Offensive merely by looking at US Military deaths. The death rate of American troops in the years following the Tet Offensive actually rose!

[Image: NamCasualtyRate_zpsce3f9eb4.jpg]

Please don't believe the revisionist history that the Vietnam War was a Military Victory for the United States. It was not.

If you want to know what the Vietnam War was really about and how the United States lost, then I suggest you watch an interview with Historian James William Gibson. It is a 10 part interview with the first part shown below.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
30-03-2013, 09:00 PM
RE: North Korea
(30-03-2013 08:49 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 07:09 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Oh as for Vietnam, after the Tet offensive the North Vietnamese army was so crippled had the war continued the US would have won, Public support in the states for the war was gone by this stage so a pull out was inevitable.

In an interview with Bui Tin a colonel in the norths army said "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." It was actually part of the north Vietnamese battleplan that and the supplies from the soviets. If NK starts the war they will have no one, china has been distancing themselves from them for a while now....Apparently I didn't lose that one after all.

Actually, the Tet Offensive was a major military victory for the Vietnamese Communists, and all this stuff about America's army being sabotaged by the nation's will to fight after the Tet Offensive is revisionist history.

After the 1968 Tet Offensive, the Vietcong were stronger than ever. The Vietcong Command and Logistical Infrastructure that had supported Tet was untouched. The Vietcong had lost in the cities, but had driven the Americans and South Vietnamese Army out of the countryside thus giving them control of the rural population and re-establishing their Financial (i.e., Tax) and Support Infrastructure througout the countryside where most of the people lived.

Although the Vietcong lost 40,000+ troops in the offensive, these were instantly replaced with North Vietnamese regulars (the Vietcong simply reloaded) and again the Vietcong were up to strength (about 600,000+).

We can prove that the Vietcong were stronger than ever after the Tet Offensive merely by looking at US Military deaths. The death rate of American troops in the years following the Tet Offensive actually rose!

[Image: NamCasualtyRate_zpsce3f9eb4.jpg]

Please don't believe the revisionist history that the Vietnam War was a Military Victory for the United States. It was not.

I have a good friend stationed in Guam during Vietnam (my dad was in the navy also during that time) he was in charge of press releases. He said all too often the shit he read was horrific. He'd bring it to his CO who didn't release it.

He said there was no way in hell we'd ever won, short of nuking the whole country.

My Dad joined because of freedom and all that. His dad served in WW2 and felt it was his turn to serve his country. He would talk about wearing his uniform and walking through the airport and people would spit on him, call him a baby burner. Not one person ever said thank you. It was a sad period in our history. I was born in the middle of it.

Yea he hated the hippy movement...but later he thanked them -- it took years for him to see all the lies he'd been fed during those years. .

The sun rises in the West and the bird shits on the coffeetable.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
30-03-2013, 09:45 PM
RE: North Korea
Momsurroundedbyboys,

Your dad sounds like a great guy. I am glad he saw the truth. Many did not and never will.

20 years ago, I had three co-workers and ex-soldiers (Marine, Army, Navy SEAL) try to explain to me who the Vietcong were, and why they were fighting. They had all been face-to-face with the Vietcong and knew them well and understood them. I was so "Indoctrinated" that I wouldn't listen and so they went silent and kept to themselves. I wish I could apologize to them, but they are long gone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: North Korea
(30-03-2013 09:45 PM)Julius Wrote:  Momsurroundedbyboys,

Your dad sounds like a great guy. I am glad he saw the truth. Many did not and never will.

20 years ago, I had three co-workers and ex-soldiers (Marine, Army, Navy SEAL) try to explain to me who the Vietcong were, and why they were fighting. They had all been face-to-face with the Vietcong and knew them well and understood them. I was so "Indoctrinated" that I wouldn't listen and so they went silent and kept to themselves. I wish I could apologize to them, but they are long gone.

That I can kinda relate to...sometimes I wish I'd paid better attention...but...

He's been gone a long time, he died just before John Lennon (1980 was a fucked up year for me) He wasn't a great guy. He had many flaws most were taken out on his daughter.

But it really doesn't change the facts that went on then so long ago. I do know he was ashamed of his service or afraid how others would react to it. He never put it on a job application. He told me not to get a government flag either when he died.

But I do have his service record he got from the government. Dunno if they kept a copy..but they sent him what seems to be an original. Found it with of all people, my grandmother's things after she died a few years ago. Dunno why she never gave it to me. No, it wasn't his mother...that's my mom's mom...

Dunno...I was 21 when my mom died, just a short while after I got married.

I keep saying I need to write this shit down for my kids someday...so they might understsnd a little. But...dunno....

The sun rises in the West and the bird shits on the coffeetable.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 11:21 PM
RE: North Korea
(30-03-2013 07:33 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  You seem to think I'm for this war for some reason?

All I said was the north doesn't have the resources to win, yes they could resort to guerilla tactics but The north is all about show, If they go to war it will be exactly that all show, Look at us gloriously throwing millions of life's away head on at the imperialist enemy. Hit and run isn't their style.

Oh I agree they can't win. That's not the problem, I don't think anyone thinks they will win, especially now that South Korea is an actual decent place.

I'm just saying that it wont be an easy war no matter who's involved.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 07:37 PM
North Korea
War is about killing civilians for the most part, especially when one is the invading force. Look at North Korea, we are told that they are desperately poor yet a huge build up of nuclear capable bombers are now in the area around North Korea.

WHAT would be nuked or bombed? If they are really as poor as we say why the huge military build up? Deep underground tunnel networks have been in place to withstand any kind of bombing campaign including nuclear.

Again, WHAT would the u.s. bomb?

South Korea in its part in the instigating recently signed military contracts to put in one of the largest missile systems, other than to provoke the north, what would these missiles be aimed at.

Not to mention the mental gymnastics it takes to believe both: North Korea is a secretive closed society that we know very little about AND we know that they are a poor nation. We know and we don't know about them at the same time.


Team america
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 07:46 PM
North Korea
Who provoked who?

What if china scheduled war games off the Gulf of Mexico and these war games were practicing the invasion of the U.S. AND while they were scheduling these these military games Chinese defense contractors were putting in long range missile systems in Latin American countries.

Now I know that you guys are dumber than a rock but if your brain can't comprehend why these acts would be taken as a provocation than you are fucking stupid.

South Korea and the U.S. did those things before the north started "acting irrationally"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: